About your Search

20140226
20140306
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
in arizona this week and in you began uganda. a huge ongoing clash between religion and tolerance in my view, which is playing itself out good and bad in places. great in many ways. you're seeing a lot of gay rights being encouraged around america, for example, but in arizona a big backwards step in terms of the thinking of some people there. what's the way around this in terms of -- i have great respect for people who are very religious and interpret the bible in a certain way and it makes them have views about things like homosexuality or whatever it may be. i just don't like it when people who don't agree with something use bigoted rhetoric. i think that's a step too far. but there's a wider issue here of tolerance. and you guys are great examples of very intolerant, implaquable divides coming together. what do you think, roma? how's the best way to handle it? >> i think that perhaps as christian people we become known as people who speak out against things instead of being people who speak out for. and instead of what we oppose it's what we propose. and i think we propose love. i mean, w
burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, a rule applied to everybody. now what the law does, what the law would do, this law that the governor is looking at, is make a couple of amendments. first of all, it would not apply just to a person but to a business as well. so a business could assert a religious freedom interest. and basically what it would do is give businesses who refuse to serve someone for religious reasons a defense if they get sued. so that's how the law would change the current religious freedom restoration act. it would apply to businesses. they could go to court if they're sued and say, you know, it was our religious -- this is our religious freedom. it would violate it to serve someone if we believe that would interfere with our practices and beliefs. >> so, pete, there are people who are making the argument against the law saying, well, listen, maybe a muslim business owner will say, i don't want to serve christians or maybe the law could be used in some other way. somebody who had an objection, let's sa
, regardless of their religion or sexual orientation in the united states. that's not the case in so many other countries and so this year's human rights report catalogs those kinds of abuses if someone is part of what's considered a minority group for this country or that. it is a very comprehensive document, tony. >> and roz, according to the state department who are did worst offenders of violating human rights laws? >> they don't rank countries per se, but what they do instead is point out what they consider the more egregious violations of human rights. such was the case on thursday when the report was released, about the way people were treated inside syria. if they are supporting the political opposition that wants to replace bashar al-assad they are targeted. if they live in communities where people are opposed to be government where people also happen to live they are targeted as well. the report made a point of saying the u.s. was using both chemical weapons as well as traditional weapons into not opposing the government, they said this is just beyond the pale in terms of the way the
because of their religion so she didn't think the bill made accepts. your organization release add statement today that read "this legislation would give homosexuals more protection than they did under the current law". given nobody could come up with example of the discrimination, how could they have more protection under a law essentially created to allow people who didn't want to serve gays getting married with things like photography or wedding cakes? >> well, the irony is that arizona does not currently have sexual orientation listed as a protected category in either their employment nondiscrimination laws or public accommodation laws. so the current state of the law in arizona is that anybody can discriminate against gays at any time for any reason or for no reason whatsoever. this bill deals only with when a government action conflicts with a person's sincerely held religious belief. it requires the person asserting that right to be able to prove that this is motivated by the religious belief, that that belief is sincerely held, and that the government action is a substantia
of their religion, that's already covered under current law. the only group not covered under current or federal state law in arizona for nondiscrimination is gays and lesbians. everybody else is already covered. >> that's a separate issue, of course. just to go back to what you were saying, if you actually read the language of the law, it was a terribly drawn law. it was full of language like if there's a compelling state interest, then you can compel someone to even violate what he calls his religious conscience. the point is i think reasonable people can agree and we should find the areas of agreement, not disagreement. for instance, i do think we should agree that people should not be forced by government to do something that seriously violates conscience if it is based on a legitimate religious recognized in your church. however, that doesn't give you the right to ban access to what was called public accommodations. that was the basis for the greatest legislation in this area, the civil rights act of 1964. i think we ought to go back to that and specify public accommodations. >> but again f
with her if she could come up with one single example of discrimination based on religion in arizona that people of faith have suffered through. she couldn't come up with one other than hypotheticals that maybe might happen. but she had no actual example of it actually having occurred. that's interesting because governor brewer specifically pointed that out. i want to play some of that exchange we had with nancy barta, one of the authors of s b 1062. >> senator, do you have any actual example of someone in arizona being forced to do something against their religious beliefs? >> well, in arizona it could be happening all the time, yes. >> do you have an actual example? >> well, surely. people may be being asked to -- >> i mean where it's actually happened. >> well, obviously if people aren't bringing it to court we don't know about it at this point. but we do know that without this law, people would not be able to defend themselves in court. >> but again, you can't name actually one example where this has happened. because people opposed to this say look, this is a problem -- this is
religion if they didn't want to -- in particular if they didn't want to serve a customer. but the laws were not so specific as to say, well, you don't have to serve a gay person. they were just stating that you could cite religion as a reason not to do so in a court proceeding. now, whether or not they're a backlash to same-sex marriage, it's obvious the changes were proposed for that reason because that's what the legislators said that they were concerned about. i don't think it's going to do anything to stem the tide of support for same-sex marriage or for gay rights generally. >> adam, thank you. >>> up next, the "brain trust," spike lee, this is msnbc. suddee a mouthbreather. well, put on a breathe right strip and instantly open your nose up to 38% more than cold medicines alone. so you can breathe and sleep. shut your mouth and sleep right. breathe right. so you can breathe and sleep. "stubborn love" by the lumineers did you i did. email? so what did you think of the house? did you see the school ratings? oh, you're right. hey babe, i got to go. bye daddy! have a good day at school, ok
claim it will cause discrimination based upon religion. i stopped at that until tonight. a muslim waiter serving up here walked up to the sheriff and wouldn't give in because he said i don't serve swine. >> i know you couldn't hear that, but you were there. you were live at first when he made the comment about senate bill 1062 which you have been talking a lot about this week. a lot of people thought that could create a situation that you thought was okay. in that comment, he talked about muslims and so i guess my question to you is, is it ever okay. given our country's history to throw race outer and use it. >> i was the top guy in south america and turkey and the mideast. i know a little about foreign countries. i know about racism. i'm not going to get into my family's background. he was just making some comments. i didn't tell him what to do. i got him five minutes before. governor perry was talking about me. a lot of people roasted me. why did they put it out yesterday? why not three days ago. why did they wait for the governor's decision. you can see the politics involved in this.
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)